Jae Onasi Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 So far, for the Republicans, Huckabee is winning by quite a bit over Romney (with only 25% reporting in so far), with Thompson and McCain in distant third and fourth. With 50% of districts reporting in right now for the Democrats, Obama is ahead by a hair at 34%. Clinton and Edwards are just behind with 32% each and Richardson's coming in at 2%, Biden at 1%. Any thoughts on how this might affect the US Presidential election? If Huckabee wins in IA, can he survive in other states, or will Romney? Who seems to be the most viable candidate for the Dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 For the future of mankind I hope McCain gets in; hes the only candidate with honour; and the first decent presidential nominee America has had since Clinton. In many respects I wish I could vote in these elections as they are so important to the world given America is the only superpower around at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 All hail the Iowan Corn Farmers! Leaders of the Free World! Defenders of Truth and Honor! *bows to their mightiness* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Fox has called it for Obama and Huckabee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 So has Retuers. So, looks to me Huckabee won Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisG Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 A remarkable example of government BY the people in action, i very much enjoyed seeing it all in action. I wish the new agencies would NOT EVER try to predict or CALL anything, that is none of their business, and all of ours, they are reporters and have no business bending public opinion with their opinions in my humble opinion. I hope that this trend ends and that they return to dong their real jobs. a fascinating night. I do think that things are still very open as to who might in the end win, this is very early days and much can happen as the other states have their primaries, Iowa historically is an interesting preable but does not determine the outcome. Huckabee in my humble opinion also, is an anomaly raised up by one small segment of religious support but not overall as hopefull a leader as others, but who knows this early? I can only say it is very interesting and I am so glad we have so many candidates wiling to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 This race is far from over. Any candidate cound conceivably still win on the Republican side, and any of the three frontrunners could probably pull the Democratic nomination. In a race with this many candidates with so much to lose, winning really puts a bullseye on the one in the lead. All it would take to shake this thing up is a little dirt in the right hands. Politics is a dirty business. Stuff like that has happened before, and will happen again. On the Republican side, the religious right have had a field day, electing one of their own for the first time, with Romney not all that far behind. Of course, Iowa is one of the most religious parts of the country, so how this religious support plays out through the rest of the election is going to be interesting. I expect that Romney will redouble his efforts, and New Hampshire is a whole different ball game, in terms of the voters there. I'd say that Huckabee won't fare nearly as well in New Hampshire, but John McCain and Ron Paul will do rather well in the Live Free or Die state. On the Democratic side, I suspect Obama will continue to do well, probably continuing to edge out Clinton. Although I could see race as well as sex being an issue in the South, so Edwards still has a shot down there simply due to common predjudices. From what I've experienced of southern politics, you can't count on a supporter to come out and vote for you, but you can be damn sure everyone who's going to be voting _against_ you will turn out. Both parties still show the potential for a brokered convention, and Bloomberg is likely to be a spoiler of a third-party candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmerman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I sincerely believe electing another christian crusader for preacher-in-chief will do nothing but harm to our country internationally. I truly hope that Huckabee will not win in the other states, and that the christian vote does not doom the country to another four to eight years of forced piousness and cause what little international respect the country has to vainsh. I hope Republican and independent voters in New Hampshire and other early voting states realize that Ron Paul and John McCain are the only Republican candidates who are not either warmongers or religious lunatics, and are the only ones with a chance of changing international perception of the laughingstock our country has become, Ron Paul more so than McCain. Seriously, the fact that Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in a large part due to the "born again" christians disgusts me. The leader of our country is not supposed to be voted for because of his religion or his religious beliefs, but because of what he promises to do for the country and the people. What is even scarier is that since the evangelicals have sufficient numbers to swing an election politicians pander to these idiots to get elected, in the words of Reagan's speechwriter Peggy Noonan. As for the Democratic results from the caucus, I couldn't be happier with the results. Of the three major candidates, not only is Obama the only one who has a shot at changing the way things are done in Washington, but he is also the winner of the caucus. Good times indeed. I truly hope voters in the other states wake up and realize that we as a country can move forward beyond the past eight years of international ridicule, federal incompetence, unethical conduct on both sides of the aisle, extremely polarized partisan rule, "we don't torture except when we do", and last but not least the extremely unpopular war(I'm not going any further in depth on that one) if only we vote for those espousing change and not those representative of the past. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Apparently the voters liked the message Huckabee had to say on political issues, which is what he campaigned on. Give those of us who are religious a little more credit than voting for a guy just because he's 'born again'. If that were the case, Robertson would have been pres a long time ago. I and many other conservative Christians look at a lot of different issues when choosing someone for such an important office (stance on social issues, health care, the war(s), foreign policy, etc.). I would have preferred McCain, but I knew he pretty much didn't have a chance there, if at all in the Rep race. I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 For the future of mankind I hope McCain gets in; hes the only candidate with honour; and the first decent presidential nominee America has had since Clinton. In many respects I wish I could vote in these elections as they are so important to the world given America is the only superpower around at the moment. Nah. I'd replace "McCain" with "Ron Paul" and "Clinton" with "Theodore Roosevelt" in your statement if I'd have authored it first. (of course, Teddy wasn't nominated, he inherited it). Speaking of Ron Paul, I found this really interesting shirt on CafePress.com. I may get it... Feeling Hosed By Your Government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Apparently the voters liked the message Huckabee had to say on political issues, which is what he campaigned on. Give those of us who are religious a little more credit than voting for a guy just because he's 'born again'.Some of us can't help but notice that those conservative candidates who have a stand on issues that is consistent with having been 'born again' tend to fair better than those that don't. I think you are most certainly correct that a causal relationships is mere illusory, but perhaps that illusion is sufficient for the purposes of generalization. If that were the case, Robertson would have been pres a long time ago. I wasn't aware that he's ever run for public office, let alone President. ADDED BY EDIT: Interestingly, after writing this, I heard someone on the radio mention Pat Robertson's 1988 Presidential bid. Yay me for being wrong! I and many other conservative Christians look at a lot of different issues when choosing someone for such an important office (stance on social issues, health care, the war(s), foreign policy, etc.). I get stuck on this when I consider that Bush was reelected to a 2nd term. The 1st term I'll give you, since he ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism", but when he ran again for 04, we all knew what he was about. I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination. Here's to hoping, indeed. It'd be nice to see my campaign contributions pay off for once Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Both parties still show the potential for a brokered convention, and Bloomberg is likely to be a spoiler of a third-party candidate. Spoiler? He might...might have a chance of winning. Assuming the stars are in alignment. I'm delighted Obama won, and I was a bit surprised that Clinton came in third. I predicted she'd edge out Obama and Edwards would be a distant and forgotten 3rd, and now it's Obama/Edwards/Clinton. She's going to have a lot of work cut out for her in NH and the other early-voting states, but if Obama wins NH and then a lot of the early-voting states, I think he'll get a ton of monetary support that would go to Clinton otherwise and he'll end up taking the Dem nomination. ...Or the Edwards momentum would cause him to win NH and thereby takes over the Dem nomination... You can just never tell these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Actually Iowa DID nominate Pat Robertson once. I think Iowa's becoming disconnected from mainstream America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 All hail the Iowan Corn Farmers! Leaders of the Free World! Defenders of Truth and Honor! "They say the flapping of a corn stalk's leaves can cause a storm in Iraq. That's why I'm proud to be an Iowan, my boy!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted January 5, 2008 Author Share Posted January 5, 2008 Actually Iowa DID nominate Pat Robertson once. I think Iowa's becoming disconnected from mainstream America. In 1988 Bob Dole won the IA Caucus, and Pat Robertson came in second. Iowa couldn't nominate him at the Republican national convention because he had withdrawn from the race by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I'm actually a pretty big Ron Paul fan myself. I really like a lot of what he has to say. I don't agree with everything mind you, but I agree with most of it. I also realize that he's not likely to gain enough support to carry any states which is really sad. I was also surprised that Guiliani didn't make a stronger showing. On the democrat side....well...I don't particularly care for Hillary. She rubs me the wrong way on a lot of issues. I would much rather see Obama there, but a lot of this for me is simply who scares me less which is also sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I'm actually a pretty big Ron Paul fan myself. I really like a lot of what he has to say. Oh, yea Ron Paul is a very intelligent man. Abe Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War; we should return to the gold standard, companies should dredge navigable waterways. The alternative would be two countries, South Africa and Russia would control our economy and you would have to pay a toll to take a simple boat ride. He is my congressman and I am so proud to have his brilliance on display for the rest of the country to see. He is not against the war he is against anything and everything! He is not against pork barrel spending he is against all spending. If you want to delivery a baby, call Dr. Paul. If you want to run the country contact anyone else. I rather have eight more year of Bush than four years of Ron Paul. What I found interesting about the Iowa Caucuses was the turnout. It was higher than four years ago on the Democrat side. I also found how everyone is spinning the results to mean what they want it to mean funny. The Caucuses themselves mean very little, but the influence they will have over political contributions will make a difference. I hope that it will also thin the field on both sides and force the candidates to answer real questions that will have a real barring on the direction this country is headed. Instead of the same old song and dance along party lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 This whole race has been like a waking nightmare for me. I look at the Democrats and shiver. Hilary is crazy, Obama scares me - you ought to read the mission statement for his church. It's down now, but here's the URL. www.tucc.org/about.htm And then on the Republican Side, we've got a delicious collection of no-chancers, loons, no-gos, and milquetoasts like Paul and McCain, who might as well be Democrats. Good times. Fortunately, everything seems to get better if I jam my fingers into my ears and hum quite loudly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 "We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending." mimartin...that is a direct quote from Dr. Paul's website on his stance on debt and spending... The comment he made about the Civil War was that he felt that slavery could have been gotten rid of in another way such as other large countries did at the time, and it was in direct response to a question asked by Bill Mahr. I wasn't able to find anything on the dredging that you mentioned, but you might also read my post again and see that I stated I didn't agree with everything he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 This whole race has been like a waking nightmare for me. I look at the Democrats and shiver. Hilary is crazy, Obama scares me - you ought to read the mission statement for his church. It's down now, but here's the URL. www.tucc.org/about.htm . Which I just read and it's really no different than any other church's mission. To create converts, to bring people to Christ, and disregard status and affiliation because they're all people of God. No statements of governmental drives, no statements of wanting to take over the world, no statements against anyone, no statements of conquest or great wealth. Seems like a pretty benign church in comparason to many, IMO. Besides, anyone who circulates this forum should know that a individual who is part of a certain organization, does not always hold, support, or agree with all their goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 ^^^^ Funny, that's what I was thinking too. Besides his mother was an anthropologist and taught him about a wide variety of beliefs. I don't think he's going to turn the oval office into a bully pulpit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 "We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending." mimartin...that is a direct quote from Dr. Paul's website on his stance on debt and spending... Do you believe all campaign promises? I once believed in the term compassionate conservative too. That did not workout that well for me, or our country. "The comment he made about the Civil War was that he felt that slavery could have been gotten rid of in another way such as other large countries did at the time, and it was in direct response to a question asked by Bill Mahr. [/Quote]Oh, great idea let us take our time and get rid of that nasty little business someday down the road. I’m sure the slaves wouldn’t have minded waiting another 20-30 years. The Civil War was also about a lot more than just slavery. I did not see it on Bill Mahr, I did see him repeat this nonsense on “Meet the Press.” Also in case some of us did not remember our history what he is accusing a President that died in service of his country of is unfounded. Not only did Lincoln offer to buy the slaves in order to free them, he did it twice and it was rejected twice. I wasn't able to find anything on the dredging that you mentioned, but you might also read my post again and see that I stated I didn't agree with everything he said. It happened in the 80s. Dow Chemical wanted to allow the Port of Freeport the ability to take larger ships. Therefore, the community went to Congressman Paul to get the support to expand the port. He told them to do it themselves (being unknowledgeable at the time I agreed with him). However, this was an illegal suggestion. This type of work on navigatable waterways can only be done with the Army Corps of Engineers supervision. Something I did not know, something a congressman should have found out before saying no. He voted against the project even after knowing the facts, yet congress did support it. I guess he supports moving jobs offshore too. Washington Post - Ron Paul's voting record Smells like a double standard to me. Republican + Religion = Democrat + Religion = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Which I just read and it's really no different than any other church's mission. To create converts, to bring people to Christ, and disregard status and affiliation because they're all people of God. No statements of governmental drives, no statements of wanting to take over the world, no statements against anyone, no statements of conquest or great wealth. Seems like a pretty benign church in comparason to many, IMO. Besides, anyone who circulates this forum should know that a individual who is part of a certain organization, does not always hold, support, or agree with all their goals. Then there's that whole thing that reads like very poorly disguised Black Supremacy. THAT'S what gives me the creeps. They've more devoted to Africa than America, which smells like divided loyalties to me. A President who doesn't have America's interests held above all others should not be President of the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 That didn't stop either Bush from being elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Charming, but no matter what you think of Bush, you can't really say he cared about any other country more than he cared about the U.S.. Depending on your perspective, that can be either a comment on his patriotism or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.